Dear friends
Some scholars try to publish their papers in ISI, closed-access journals (no publication fee). They believe that open-access ISI journals publish papers faster than normal publications, the quality of their review is lower than closed-access journals and payment for publish (publication fee) is just wasting their money! They also believe that just low-level scholars publish their papers in open-access ISI journals.
In contrast with this, some scientists believe that their research findings should be public for everyone, as they use governmental grants which normally come from their nation payments (tax, GST, etc.).
What is your opinion about it?
I certainly believe that I should publish in journals that REVIEW THE PAPERS, whether it is open access or not. However the journals in my country that I use are not TR journals. Some are indexed in Scopus, do an excellent review, but no impact factor. I think we should publish to share knowledge freely, and do not get caught in the web to get impact factor points for its own sake or to feed our ego. All our research and writing should improve our science. This is the main factor. Thanks.
I have mixed views on Open Access as a means to disseminate one's research. personally I would not use it as the journals in my field are almost all not Open Access, and those that are Open Access, are of lower standing. The time frame between acceptance and publication should also be considered, as should whether articles are made available earlier online (such as by early view). The issue is that this requires subscription to journals/databases which are expensive, but more reasonable if your university/institution is a subscriber to them. Where Open Access may be worthwhile (if the fees are reasonable) is if the research findings are time dependent, and their impact would be maximized to the widest potential audience by early dissemination that Open Access may facilitate. I would suggest checking on what your institution's policy is regarding Open Access and how the costs can be funded, along with the quality of journals in your field that offer Open Access.
So sad to tell you but Journals are droping its quality so much.... Especially open journals publish so low quelality papers that anyone can publish low quality papers. Everybody is publishing to get promotions or renew contracts to survive. Nobody is publishing real academic work to propose new ideas or a real academic contribution.
Dear Mohammad Reza Safaei,
I repeat the words of Adrian: Open Access is a means to disseminate one's research freely. I feel this is better provided if the reviewing and editing is good.
I keep my position... No comments about Open access Journals. I feel the objective to publish our research change a lot... Now, we are searching more to publish in ISI, Scopus, and other abstracted and indexed in international databases...that we lose focus in our main objective... Publish real knowledge to contribute to the society...
I certainly believe that I should publish in journals that REVIEW THE PAPERS, whether it is open access or not. However the journals in my country that I use are not TR journals. Some are indexed in Scopus, do an excellent review, but no impact factor. I think we should publish to share knowledge freely, and do not get caught in the web to get impact factor points for its own sake or to feed our ego. All our research and writing should improve our science. This is the main factor. Thanks.
Dear friends
Many thanks for your valuable comments. But I like just to concentrate on ISI open & close-access journals, not fake journals.
Thanking you
The separation to OA and subscription-based journal is rather crude. It really depends on the specific journal. You have plenty of excellent OA journals, and you have enough subscription-based journals of low quality. If you publish in Genome Biology or PLoS Computational Biology you should be fine, despite the fact that these are OA journals.
But I agree with Mario. The purpose of publishing a paper is to communicate ideas, not to win a medal (or promotion). It is sad to see what science has turned into.
I strongly believe that publishing in open access does not mean that the quality of the work is low or not reviewed
I thik that the important point, and we can´t loose this, it that all articles should be review but for thirld world countries like mine and or researchers like us, OPEN ACCESS is the only way to get in touch with the development of science. The quality of the article depends of other factors. But we have to protect OA.
I agree with resolution with what colleagues put forward. I do not consider absolute the quality of a publishing for the mere fact of being in the database that is publishing (ISI, closed-access journals or open-access ISI). The important thing is the impact of the content published in the society
To be honest, the junior researchers .are looking to publish their papers in high-impact-factor-journals. Maybe, to say we are here, but I think no one does not like to share the knowledge he/she got with others.
I am totally agreed wit hDr. Saleh Etaig and Dr. Ernesto Batista Sanchez.
I am totally agreed with Dr. Saleh Etaig and Dr. Ernesto Batista Sanchez
I am totally agree with your opinion. papers in Open Access journals It is very effective in researcher's reputation.
Firstly, whether it is a closed-or open-access paper, this should never be a criterion to judge articles' quality. Secondly, If I am asked my opinion about the choice between the two forms of paper publication, I prefer (and I think about) the idea of publishing an Open-access paper because I want to publicly make known and share my research with others because it certainly will be more beneficial and useful. If not, what is the point of doing scientific research if we do not share our ideas and our knowledge with everyone?!!
As long as the research paper keeps its highy quality regarding especially the achieved results and as long as the journal is a peer reviewed one then open access or no wont be a huge different... regarding the accessibilty of the article, the one who like the abstract could always request the full text from the authors....
Since the journal is indexed, no matter if it is open access or not.
What open access does is to discourage authors to publish
Why an author or researcher working alone has to pay to have his work published, when he does not receive a cent from anybody?
He/she may put hundreds of hours in his/her own time, with no payment.
This is a journals invention. They say that the author has to pay to cover publishing costs.
What costs?
The peer review process is free for the journal, and the authors deliver the paper that can be published as it is written.
Where are the costs?
I think we have to be careful about depredator journals even though there is a mistake something like this, for example, this list: https://beallslist.weebly.com/ made mention of some journals indexed in JCR
I am agree with @ Nolberto Munier . Sometimes i thought that the process of publishing is "pushy to the farthest".
regard
Actually, the most important criterion is the quality of the review. To make sure your research is valuable, it should be reviewed by qualified researchers. So, for me, this is what influences my decision about where to publish.
Dear Hassane
That is true provided that the reviewers have an idea and knowledge of what they are reviewing.
Now, how do you know which will be your reviewers?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers